Thread: Cannabis kills

From New Scientist 22 February 2014, page 14

The first cases have now been found in which the smoking of cannabis has caused deaths, with no other agent involved.

Recent post mortems of people who died after heavy cannabis use has shown three people whose deaths were unrelated to anything other than cannabis overdose. The metabolic cause of those deaths is yet to be determined, but it is likely that more such deaths will be identified in the future.

There are many apologists for cannabis, who will adamently claim that cannabis is harmless. Well, it appears to be otherwise.

In addition to heavy use of cannabis, I am wondering what factor may be contributed by the ever increasing potency being obtained through manipulation of the plant into many hybrids which target either a 'head stone', a 'body stone' or a combination of both.

The term 'head stone' (headstone) might be an appropriate name for a variety, given these new findings.

Originally Posted by skeptic

From New Scientist 22 February 2014, page 14

The first cases have now been found in which the smoking of cannabis has caused deaths, with no other agent involved.

Recent post mortems of people who died after heavy cannabis use has shown three people whose deaths were unrelated to anything other than cannabis overdose. The metabolic cause of those deaths is yet to be determined, but it is likely that more such deaths will be identified in the future.

There are many apologists for cannabis, who will adamently claim that cannabis is harmless. Well, it appears to be otherwise.

News from The Associated Press

Dr. Benno Hartung, one of the study's authors, said the cases were among 15 deaths the scientists reviewed between 2011 and 2012. In 13 of them, other factors likely were to blame.
"We assume that these are very rare, isolated cases," Hartung said in an email to The Associated Press on Wednesday, noting that it was hard to draw any wider conclusion about the number of deaths that might be caused by cannabis use.
Still, the researchers concluded that while cannabis isn't particularly toxic and its effects are short lived, people who are at high risk for cardiovascular diseases should avoid the drug.
Dr. David Nutt, who is chairman of Britain's Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs and wasn't involved in the study, said the researchers had presented an "exceptionally complete collection of evidence in support of their theory that, unusually, cannabis was the trigger for these two tragedies."
"People with vulnerable hearts should be informed of this risk with cannabis," he said.
Nutt said an additional strain to the heart from strenuous activities can have similarly fatal consequences in people with underlying heart conditions.
By comparison, alcohol and tobacco use are accepted as the reason for a large share of premature deaths in Europe each year.

Aw come on skeptic. I read somewhere that alcohol kills about 2000 people every day. I'm not sure if this includes indirect kills like auto accidents. And now we know that marijuana might have killed two people?

At a Battalion training briefing where a local cop asked for question after a drug effects and drunk driving briefing I watched a young Soldier stand up and ask about how many died on the highway of just alcohol...I don't remember the answer but it was over 10,000. Than he asked how many died of just marijuana in their systems. The cop quietly said none that I know of...the soldier asked again pretending he didn't hear the answer.

--
While I'm not at all surprised that marijuana can actually kill in huge doses, or after long periods of high use, the fact remains that the legal controls and money spent are both based in largely contrived arguments and completely out of proportion its negative effects.

Three deaths out of tens of millions of regular users can still be considered to be statistically harmless.

Pot dangerous to health ? Maybe,... if a crate of it fell on your head. I'd apply more skepticism. Or, try some pot.

Pitiful.

Water is deadlier. Check out how many people drown.

What I'm going to say is anecdotal. It is my own experience with both alcohol and marijuana. I've been smoking marijuana and drinking alcohol for 45 years. For the most part I've done it responsibly and at most once a week. I won't lie and say that I've done the right thing every time but I've never been in trouble with it. I've just retired from a high-tech engineering job at a very large tech company after working there 30 years, so the marijuana didn't addle my brain. Anyhow, here's the difference for me. I have several motorcycles. I've always had motorcycles. If I'm legally drunk, I still might want to go for a ride on one of my bikes. But if I'm smoked up, there is no way I would even want to ride one. That's the difference for me. Drunk, I might get into a fight -- haven't for many years. Smoked up, no way. I can get aggressive with alcohol. Alcohol makes me want to jump up and go do things, like driving. Marijuana makes me want to sit around at home, eat, and listen to music.

YMMV

The claim in the title is not scientific.

I have heard that smoking anything can increase your chances of getting lung cancer.
But living in a city also increases your chances of getting lung cancer.

Personally, I support people's choices to shorten their life spans.

I see politicians complain when people shorten their lives through drugs, etc. but then complain that we can't afford to have so many people living to be 90.
I say: Solve the pension crisis! Do more seriously fun shit before you retire!

Smoking marijuana is like most things in life: moderation is the key. Same as eating, drinking, lounging around watching TV, accessing the internet, exercising, loving, shopping, etc.. Sure, if you get smoked up several times a day, that can't be good for you. And if you start at a very early age, that probably won't be too good for you either. I didn't start drinking and smoking till I was an adult at 19, almost 20 years old.

I am reporting on an item published in New Scientist that I found interesting. The number dead was three, by the way. One report said two, but the New Scientist article reported on another case as well. The New Scientist item also pointed out that the deaths did not represent a great harm, since they were few, but claimed that the long term impact of cannabis on the human brain was of more import.

As far as I am concerned, I am just refuting the claims of many people that cannabis is harmless. It is not harmless. It is less harmful than many other drugs, but is not harmless. I am, personally, a lover of good red wine. I know that the alcohol in that red wine causes more harm than smoking cannabis does, but I drink it anyway, in full possession of the knowledge of the harm it may cause.

For cannabis, the same situation sould apply. People who consume it should be aware that it is not harmless. It may be less harmful than alcohol, but it does cause harm to its users. If someone chooses to smoke it anyway, that is their choice. But the choice should be made knowing about the risk.

Harmless? I don't know that anyone argues it's harmless. It's smoking. Smoking causes cancer and heart disease.

But you haven't presented high-confidence evidence that any of these people "died of cannabis." You're conflating these two claims.

Not harmless ≠ capable of killing

Originally Posted by skeptic

cannabis . . . is less harmful than many other drugs,

. . . like alcohol. Much less harmful than alcohol.

Much less harmful than smoking cigarettes, even light ones, says the multiple heart attack victim who managed to quit before he died.

Originally Posted by Schneibster

Much less harmful than smoking cigarettes, even light ones, says the multiple heart attack victim who managed to quit before he died.

Good for you -- quitting that is. I've smoked a cigarette or two in my life. I still have fond memories of it. I never smoked enough to be hurt by it. I understand it's attraction though.

How are you doin' after the attacks? Hope you are full well now.

Getting there. Now I have to find out if I still have a career.

Hope that works out for ya.

Thanks, man. You and me both.

Originally Posted by PumaMan

Hope that works out for ya.

Likewise.

My hubby had a heart attack just over five years ago and getting him flown out of the Yukon for advanced attention was delayed by bad weather for 17 hours. The doctor did not expect him to return, let alone recover to his previous capacities. He is now the head of tech and computer asssisted ordering at our store and we have been leading the pack of franchise stores almost every week since the middle of 2013. We are blowing the competition out of the water with our aged and infirm crew, proving the axiom that old age and treachery (experience) will overcome youth and skill every time.

From your communication style and content, I perceive no reason why you should not have a career in your future, Schneibster.

Thanks, scheherazade! :hug:

As a non smoker who has a heart as strong as an ox at age 65, let me congratulate the man who tossed the evil habit.

You are correct, of course. Smoking tobacco is worse than cannabis and kills a lot more people. Drinking alcohol does the same. I am not claiming that cannabis is a major harm, since it is not. But nor is it free of harm. It does, indeed, contain carcinogens and probably causes lung cancer. It also probably kills a lot of people via accidents, when the smoker is somewhat less competent due to the cannabis and has a lethal accident as a result. The problem is that it is very difficult to judge, after the event, how much cannabis contributed to an accident.

My feeling is that cannabis should be legal, regulated, and taxed, just like alcohol. But people should also be educated to know that it is harmful, also just like alcohol.

Originally Posted by skeptic

whose deaths were unrelated to anything other than cannabis overdose. The metabolic cause of those deaths is yet to be determined, but it is likely that more such deaths will be identified in the future.

And it might be worth mentioning that absolutely statements such as "unrelated to anything other," are not very scientific. Was there a confidence interval? Which and how many other potential causes were actually tested and found unlikely (to what level of certainty)? That they didn't have an explanation for a metabolic cause tosses even more doubt on the accuracy of the statement: "unrelated to anything other,"

Do we have a link to the actual study, or abstract--because it seems quite possible the actual study probably used more caveated and contextual language.

Originally Posted by skeptic

As a non smoker who has a heart as strong as an ox at age 65, let me congratulate the man who tossed the evil habit.

You are correct, of course. Smoking tobacco is worse than cannabis and kills a lot more people. Drinking alcohol does the same. I am not claiming that cannabis is a major harm, since it is not. But nor is it free of harm. It does, indeed, contain carcinogens and probably causes lung cancer. It also probably kills a lot of people via accidents, when the smoker is somewhat less competent due to the cannabis and has a lethal accident as a result. The problem is that it is very difficult to judge, after the event, how much cannabis contributed to an accident.

My feeling is that cannabis should be legal, regulated, and taxed, just like alcohol. But people should also be educated to know that it is harmful, also just like alcohol.

Sure. However, I'm not very likely to take on anything challenging when I'm stoned. You learn your limits when you get older. And I don't smoke much anyway. Education and moderation are key.

If only there was a way to get the effects of Cannabis without having to breathe in a load of smoke, I'm sure it would be quite popular.

I don't smoke because the smoke sets my allergies off, but I'm sure if I was able to, then Cannabis would help both my anxiety and my appetite.

I wonder if you could brew Cannabis leaves like they were tea leaves...?

Some health effects result from pot usage, I must admit. Not good for the lungs; no smoke is. I'm not proud of my use, but can't manage to feel ashamed, either. It's inhibitive effect regarding aggressive behavior seems evident, and it's calming effect. It does have medicinal uses. Nature's Prozac

I have a vaporizer and many people swear by them. My observation is they increase my consumption by about 20 or 30%. The correct temperature is 335°F or 169°C. This will vaporize the good parts without making particulates. This may avoid problems with your allergies; it does for many people.

You can get the good parts out by brewing it like tea, but you will do better sauteing with butter or salad oil or olive oil; THC and the associated compounds are fat-soluable, not necessarily water-soluable. Be careful to stay below 350°F or 175°C to avoid degradation of the active principle. The butter or oil may be used to make baked goods (remember the temperature limit!) or for sautes which may then be added to pizza, or salads, or other foods that do not get heated too much. Be careful when you eat such goods; marijuana is often much more powerful when eaten than the same amount smoked or vaporized. I suggest starting with around a teaspoon of good bud ground with a coffee or spice grinder, added to a few tablespoons of butter, per person. This should have a strong effect without being overwhelming. If you are extremely sensitive and allergic, this may be the way for you to start. Be sure to be in a safe place and that there are arrangements to stay there.

Lets keep the discussion relevant to the medical and health effects of marijuana and leave out the specific methods of using what is still an illegal substance in many places. Thanks.

Schneibster

Life throws us many an arrow....some pierce, some are deflected, and some graze......and we learn from each of them....how to not let break us , how to change, and how to mend.

So..you shall be find.

In theatre we say...."FINDING MY CORE"

in golf we say "FIND YOUR CENTER"

Find yours and you will be just fine....you are smart and witty.... .best wishes


same thing..

find your center, balance yourself and you shall be fin.

as for pot.

I never smoked it much ...I mean I think the first time after 30 years or more was about 9 years ago....though they say it is good for glaucoma....

Originally Posted by Daecon

If only there was a way to get the effects of Cannabis without having to breathe in a load of smoke, I'm sure it would be quite popular.

I don't smoke because the smoke sets my allergies off, but I'm sure if I was able to, then Cannabis would help both my anxiety and my appetite.

I wonder if you could brew Cannabis leaves like they were tea leaves...?

Yes, yes you can. You can make brownies with them. Use them in the tomato sauce of your pizza topping. You can actually make tea with them or you can simply chew them. Extracting it could be viable, but eau naturel it is much better and healthier.

On something sceptic said above, that having a glass of wine a day is unhealthy, that is not true. Having moderate amounts of alcohol is actually good for the liver, the throat and the brain. Your vascular system also enjoys a slight concentration of alcohol. It's also not placebo effect, because mice have shown to preform better when consuming small amounts of alcohol, and also live longer.

Moderation is the key..

( i just read the newspaper saying any red meat, or any meat whatsoever is bad for your health, i feel some sort of boycott following on because it may affect the meat industry, and because the proof wasn't there yet, i'm not stopping my habit of eating meat...)

ANYTHING can kill you. When it starts killing the people around you, that's when I take issue.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

ANYTHING can kill you. When it starts killing the people around you, that's when I take issue.

And that's what alcohol does best. I really don't care if someone wants to rot their own liver.

Originally Posted by PumaMan

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

ANYTHING can kill you. When it starts killing the people around you, that's when I take issue.

And that's what alcohol does best. I really don't care if someone wants to rot their own liver.

And yet, we glorify alcohol and demonize marijuana. We're blinded by...



TRADITION!

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

And yet, we glorify alcohol and demonize marijuana. We're blinded by...

I think that we just have to wait till all the old farts die off -- you know, the ones who watched Reefer Madness and believed it:

The "demon weed" stuff has been manufactured. The alcohol industry is responsible for some of these popular myths about marijuana. Ignorance and moral rectitude (religious piety) have played a part, as well.
Carl Sagan wrote that it helped aid his imagination. Abstract thought is the foundation of ideas, and forms the basis for scientific inquiry. What is wrong with that ?

[QUOTE=PumaMan;536835]

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

And yet, we glorify alcohol and demonize marijuana. We're blinded by...

I think that we just have to wait till all the old farts die off -- you know, the ones who watched Reefer Madness and believed it:

[/QUOTE
I saw Reefer Madness in the seventies. Couldn't stop laughing though I realized it was not intended as comedy.

Originally Posted by umbradiago

The "demon weed" stuff has been manufactured. The alcohol industry is responsible for some of these popular myths about marijuana.

More so the nonnatural/petro-fiber industries of the 1930s, particularly Duponte, which successfully used their influence on capital hill to knock off their largest competitor, hemp, by spreading falsehoods about marijuana and buying votes to pass laws against its use.

Based on health issues and threat to society pot really doesn't merit much more controls or regulation than caffeine drinks.

Originally Posted by umbradiago

I saw Reefer Madness in the seventies. Couldn't stop laughing though I realized it was not intended as comedy.

It's a great Rifftrax if you're a fan of MST3k. Well worth a watch.

Mystery Science Theater Three Thousand ? Thanks ! I used to love that ! Sometimes bad movies are really entertaining. I still enjoy Jack Webb's "Dragnet" for all the wrong reasons. His depiction of the "counter-culture" was hilarious. All deadpanned, of course.

Originally Posted by umbradiago

Sometimes bad movies are really entertaining.

Unless it's the new Riddick movie. Speaking of pot, you'd have to be high to be entertained by that one.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by umbradiago

Sometimes bad movies are really entertaining.

Unless it's the new Riddick movie. Speaking of pot, you'd have to be high to be entertained by that one.

Don't know of Riddick, but I will be, I'm pretty sure.

The silliest thing about cannabis is that it is illegal, while alcohol and tobacco are not. If cannabis was legalised, regulated, and taxed, then development as a consumer product could take place. Imagine an ecigarette that delivers cool THC, but eliminates all the nasty stuff.

The other thing that is needed is a quick and easy test for cannabis intoxication, so that standards can be set for driving a car, and the police can stop people, test them, and extract lots of lovely money off those drivers who smoke too much.

Very silly, indeed. Interdiction has resulted in huge profits for the police and their respective county governments as well as huge taxpayer-paid police budgets and the hiring of more police. This is the main reason
most states in the US want to keep it illegal. It has little to do with "the public good" or any morals issue. Like just about everything else, it's about profit. The dollar sign should be on our flag, perhaps. No wonder
Liberty is blind-folded.

nm

Originally Posted by skeptic

The other thing that is needed is a quick and easy test for cannabis intoxication, so that standards can be set for driving a car, and the police can stop people, test them, and extract lots of lovely money off those drivers who smoke too much.

Based on what? Unlike booze, there's only a quite mild reduction in driving capacity and no significant connection between marijuana use and increased risk of driving accidents (probably because like old people...they just drive slower). It would be a frivolous law still based in poorly supported preconceptions.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

(probably because like old people...they just drive slower).

That's a fact. The few times I've driven stoned the trip seemed to take hours and I caught myself driving well below the speed limit -- just the opposite of how I drive when buzzed on alcohol.

Another alcohol vs. marijuana fact, at least for me, is that I can get pretty smoked up and aside from maybe eating too much I feel fine the next morning. But if I drink too much there will be hell to pay the next morning.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Unless it's the new Riddick movie. Speaking of pot, you'd have to be high to be entertained by that one.

Nope.
It didn't help.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by umbradiago

The "demon weed" stuff has been manufactured. The alcohol industry is responsible for some of these popular myths about marijuana.

More so the nonnatural/petro-fiber industries of the 1930s, particularly Duponte, which successfully used their influence on capital hill to knock off their largest competitor, hemp, by spreading falsehoods about marijuana and buying votes to pass laws against its use.

Based on health issues and threat to society pot really doesn't merit much more controls or regulation than caffeine drinks.

William Randolph Hearst was involved, too; paper for his newspapers you see. He didn't want hemp paper to make his forest holdings worthless.

OTOH, Henry Ford wanted to use it as feedstock for alcohol for his cars, instead of oil. More to the point, so did Rudolph Diesel. He thought his engines ran cleaner on hemp diesel than on petro-diesel. Had we gone the way they wanted, there would never have been an oil crisis. Much less any of the mideast problems before and since.

Rumors persist of a "plastic car made of hemp," actually it was only about 10% hemp fiber. On the other hand, there is also a Lotus that is made with natural fibers, including hemp, and it's for sale. It's called an "Eco Elise." No THC though.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by umbradiago

Sometimes bad movies are really entertaining.

Unless it's the new Riddick movie. Speaking of pot, you'd have to be high to be entertained by that one.

That's a shame. A bit ashamed to say that the first two Riddick movies are a guilty pleasure of mine.

I think weed is still classified as a class 1 narcotic. I may be wrong. In any case, it defies categorization; I have tried almost every illegal drug (but only beyond the three-mile limit of the shoreline which the law allows) and pot is unique; it can bring me up when I'm down, down when I "go off", and has a pleasing effect of mild euphoria. Don't use if operating heavy equipment, like a can-opener. I did, but no longer drive while under the influence. Unless I have to go somewhere.

Another reason marijuana was feared was that it was the drug of choice of the African-American musicians of the 20s and 30s. That association was enough to make white America fear it.

I don't use pot but I am still opposed to the prohibition of pot. It used to be low potency and not very commonly found but ever since Reagan's "War on Drugs" it has become commonly available and highly potent. There is also a large criminal industry involved in growing and marketing it that simply did not exist before the drug war started.

I think the mandatory drug testing response in industry is a bit dumb too.
Hard drugs like crack and amphetamines have a very short detection time in the body but drugs like marijuana can still be tested for up to 30 days after they were used. I have seen this push people who would normlly just smoke a bit of weed towards using crack or other synthetic highs because they are afraid of testing positive for pot.
Personally I would prefer everybody I worked with to be drug free.
Since I don't really expect the working world will be drug free I certainly would prefer the people who get high to be getting high on pot than other stuff that makes them go insane and dangerous.

People sometimes ask if I'm okay flying with a pilot who's high. I tell them I have; me.

Objectively speaking, all pilots are high, at least during the flight.

Upon landing, they revert to being like the rest of us...grounded, lol...

Originally Posted by PumaMan

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by umbradiago

Sometimes bad movies are really entertaining.

Unless it's the new Riddick movie. Speaking of pot, you'd have to be high to be entertained by that one.

That's a shame. A bit ashamed to say that the first two Riddick movies are a guilty pleasure of mine.

Not to stray further off topic, but Pitch Black is a top 5 sci fi action movie for me. Loved it.

Originally Posted by dan hunter

I don't use pot but I am still opposed to the prohibition of pot. It used to be low potency and not very commonly found but ever since Reagan's "War on Drugs" it has become commonly available and highly potent. There is also a large criminal industry involved in growing and marketing it that simply did not exist before the drug war started.

I think the mandatory drug testing response in industry is a bit dumb too.
Hard drugs like crack and amphetamines have a very short detection time in the body but drugs like marijuana can still be tested for up to 30 days after they were used. I have seen this push people who would normlly just smoke a bit of weed towards using crack or other synthetic highs because they are afraid of testing positive for pot.
Personally I would prefer everybody I worked with to be drug free.
Since I don't really expect the working world will be drug free I certainly would prefer the people who get high to be getting high on pot than other stuff that makes them go insane and dangerous.

I can't imagine working high. I have enough trouble having a glass of wine or beer with lunch with the department on Friday; I'm good for diddly for the afternoon. I file paperwork because I'm not fit to code.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Not to stray further off topic, but Pitch Black is a top 5 sci fi action movie for me. Loved it.

"Did not know who he was f**king with." My favorite line from that flick.

I didn't realise there was a new Riddick film, shame that it seem's as if it might truly suck.
Everybody knows about "Dark Fury"? ; The Chronicles of Riddick: Dark Fury - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by PumaMan

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Not to stray further off topic, but Pitch Black is a top 5 sci fi action movie for me. Loved it.

"Did not know who he was f**king with." My favorite line from that flick.

OK, since people are posting utter crap totally unrelated to the OP, I will post this:

When encountering pro/ anti-cannabis usage threads in my escapades on the Internet I see a common trend of people assuming that any pro-legalisation post will be met with an undeserved assumption that the poster is some sort of pothead. I do not smoke anything and I am pro-legalisation. I feel as though any meaningful discussion stops when someone is labeled as a pothead and the other side looks self-righteous, and therefore (apparently) the winner.

P.S. PumaMan, please stop posting unrelated garbage on otherwise serious threads.

I started it.

The notion of cannabis somehow being a lethal drug seemed to make enough of a crap thread that adding more crap wouldn't crap it up anymore.

My fault.

Originally Posted by pyoko

Originally Posted by PumaMan

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Not to stray further off topic, but Pitch Black is a top 5 sci fi action movie for me. Loved it.

"Did not know who he was f**king with." My favorite line from that flick.

OK, since people are posting utter crap totally unrelated to the OP, I will post this:

When encountering pro/ anti-cannabis usage threads in my escapades on the Internet I see a common trend of people assuming that any pro-legalisation post will be met with an undeserved assumption that the poster is some sort of pothead. I do not smoke anything and I am pro-legalisation. I feel as though any meaningful discussion stops when someone is labeled as a pothead and the other side looks self-righteous, and therefore (apparently) the winner.

P.S. PumaMan, please stop posting unrelated garbage on otherwise serious threads.

Flick started it and has now apologised, but it is nothing major. No need to go after the other guy so vigorously.

"crap threads" are only crap to some, not all. It's all relative. Any area of human thought should be allowed expression. All the speculation about a creator is crap, really. But people have and will continue to speculate; nothing wrong with that. Even literal crap has some medical significance. No topic is out-of-bounds.

Originally Posted by PumaMan

Smoking marijuana is like most things in life: moderation is the key. Same as eating, drinking, lounging around watching TV, accessing the internet, exercising, loving, shopping, etc.. Sure, if you get smoked up several times a day, that can't be good for you. And if you start at a very early age, that probably won't be too good for you either. I didn't start drinking and smoking till I was an adult at 19, almost 20 years old.

The best way to use pot is to cook it in soup or drink it in tea, there is also the route of bathing in it mixed with sour sop leaves, the blood pressure will go down 100%.

Originally Posted by Stargate

the blood pressure will go down 100%.

Good heavens! I was wrong! Pot IS lethal....

@pyoko; I understood the alleged derailments as commentary on the thread subject. Consider a vague third or greater hand account against an established body of knowledge. That is, consider the OP against your own cursory research(Google) on the LD50 for marijuana. If this were say, Stargates thread, then it would probably have gotten "Kittened", or maybe "Kitteh'd". But it's skeptics thread, so we all geek off on some sci-fi as opposed to an open "Kittening"

If someone were to assume that I am a pothead? They would be correct

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by Stargate

the blood pressure will go down 100%.

Good heavens! I was wrong! Pot IS lethal....

Ignorance is more lethal, you do not have a clue what I am talking about. Have you ever taken sour sop leaves before? Have you ever seen pot? do you know what is meant with high blood pressure? You always try to make people think you are not a sheep but each time you give your self away that you are a sheep without clothing.

Originally Posted by Stargate

Ignorance is more lethal, you do not have a clue what I am talking about. Have you ever taken sour sop leaves before? Have you ever seen pot? do you know what is meant with high blood pressure? You always try to make people think you are not a sheep but each time you give your self away that you are a sheep without clothing.

Dude! Like, what country are you from? Sorry... No... Really....
Seroiusly now, what country are you from?

Originally Posted by Stargate

Ignorance is more lethal, you do not have a clue what I am talking about.

Stop being so f*cking stupid.

do you know what is meant with high blood pressure?

Do YOU know what a 100% reduction in blood pressure means?

You always try to make people think you are not a sheep but each time you give your self away that you are a sheep without clothing.

Originally Posted by Stargate

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by Stargate

the blood pressure will go down 100%.

Good heavens! I was wrong! Pot IS lethal....

Ignorance is more lethal, you do not have a clue what I am talking about. Have you ever taken sour sop leaves before? Have you ever seen pot? do you know what is meant with high blood pressure? You always try to make people think you are not a sheep but each time you give your self away that you are a sheep without clothing.

If your blood pressure goes down by 100 percent, it's zero and you're dead.

idiot.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Stargate

Ignorance is more lethal, you do not have a clue what I am talking about.

Stop being so f*cking stupid.

do you know what is meant with high blood pressure?

Do YOU know what a 100% reduction in blood pressure means?

You always try to make people think you are not a sheep but each time you give your self away that you are a sheep without clothing.

You are back Mr. Duck, Do you know what it means when one says it works 100%, its just a figure of speech, nothing works 100% not even you. It would be nice to use your brain more than your keyboard. But I have to admit if you do not use your head you have to use something. Are you having a nice day Mr. Duck? I hope so.

Originally Posted by Stargate

Do you know what it means when one says it works 100%

DO you know what you actually claimed?

Originally Posted by You

the blood pressure will go down 100%.

I.e. to ZERO. Dead.

It would be nice to use your brain more than your keyboard. But I have to admit if you do not use your head you have to use something.

If you weren't so bloody stupid you'd realise that you got it wrong.
And now you're trying to wriggle out of it.

Originally Posted by AlexG

Originally Posted by Stargate

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by Stargate

the blood pressure will go down 100%.

Good heavens! I was wrong! Pot IS lethal....

Ignorance is more lethal, you do not have a clue what I am talking about. Have you ever taken sour sop leaves before? Have you ever seen pot? do you know what is meant with high blood pressure? You always try to make people think you are not a sheep but each time you give your self away that you are a sheep without clothing.

If your blood pressure goes down by 100 percent, it's zero and you're dead.

idiot.

If I were to stress every mistake you make, you would not be here. I am astound how some of you are so lop sided that you are unable to think for yourselves. You could simply correct me without the remark, but you are so caught up in your own stupidity that you cannot see your nakedness. I think your teacher would be ashamed of you if you had one.

If I was asked to apologize for implying you were too dumb to remember to breathe I think you owe the whole forum an apology for the stupidity of the above posts 72 and 74.

Originally Posted by Stargate

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Stargate

Ignorance is more lethal, you do not have a clue what I am talking about.

Stop being so f*cking stupid.

do you know what is meant with high blood pressure?

Do YOU know what a 100% reduction in blood pressure means?

You always try to make people think you are not a sheep but each time you give your self away that you are a sheep without clothing.

You are back Mr. Duck, Do you know what it means when one says it works 100%, its just a figure of speech, nothing works 100% not even you. It would be nice to use your brain more than your keyboard. But I have to admit if you do not use your head you have to use something. Are you having a nice day Mr. Duck? I hope so.

you are the one that is making very clearly unsupported claims based on an utter lack of biology, You stated very specifically a 100% drop in blood pressure. That would mean the heart has stopped beating all together. ANY major ( over 50%) reduction in blood pressure will result in possible tissue death due to lack of oxygen supply

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Stargate

Do you know what it means when one says it works 100%

DO you know what you actually claimed?

Originally Posted by You

the blood pressure will go down 100%.

I.e. to ZERO. Dead.

It would be nice to use your brain more than your keyboard. But I have to admit if you do not use your head you have to use something.

If you weren't so bloody stupid you'd realise that you got it wrong.
And now you're trying to wriggle out of it.

I am not trying to wiggle out of anything, I made a mistake in the way I expressed myself, I can accept that but you a senior member calling another member stupid because I made a mistake, is more glaring that the mistake itself.

Originally Posted by Stargate

If I were to stress every mistake you make, you would not be here.

1) You can't even spot your own mistakes, let alone anyone else's.
2) Bet you can't find a mistake (other than a typo) in one of AlexG's posts.
3) If having mistakes pointed out meant that people stopped posting you'd be long gone. But you refuse to learn.

I am astound how some of you are so lop sided that you are unable to think for yourselves.

Ah right.
When YOU claim 100% you don't mean 100% and it's OUR fault for not knowing what figure you really meant.

but you are so caught up in your own stupidity that you cannot see your nakedness. I think your teacher would be ashamed of you if you had one.

This from the guy that consistently posts stupid comments and then proceeds to blame others so that he doesn't have to correct his behaviour.
You're a stupid, highly hypocritical pillock.

I am not trying to wiggle out of anything, I made a mistake in the way I expressed myself, I can accept that but you a senior member calling another member stupid because I made a mistake, is more glaring that the mistake itself.

Really?
You're not trying to wriggle out of it?
Yet you have, so far, not only failed to clarify what you meant, but have denigrated and blamed others for not understanding what you failed to convey.

Do you know what it means when one says it works 100%, its just a figure of speech

So nothing you say means what you say.

idiot.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by Stargate

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Stargate

Ignorance is more lethal, you do not have a clue what I am talking about.

Stop being so f*cking stupid.

do you know what is meant with high blood pressure?

Do YOU know what a 100% reduction in blood pressure means?

Thank you for pointing out my mistake, I meant the medication works a hundred percent.

You always try to make people think you are not a sheep but each time you give your self away that you are a sheep without clothing.

You are back Mr. Duck, Do you know what it means when one says it works 100%, its just a figure of speech, nothing works 100% not even you. It would be nice to use your brain more than your keyboard. But I have to admit if you do not use your head you have to use something. Are you having a nice day Mr. Duck? I hope so.

you are the one that is making very clearly unsupported claims based on an utter lack of biology, You stated very specifically a 100% drop in blood pressure. That would mean the heart has stopped beating all together. ANY major ( over 50%) reduction in blood pressure will result in possible tissue death due to lack of oxygen supply

you are the one that is making very clearly unsupported claims based on an utter lack of biology

This is your statement any problems there?

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Stargate

If I were to stress every mistake you make, you would not be here.

1) You can't even spot your own mistakes, let alone anyone else's.
2) Bet you can't find a mistake (other than a typo) in one of AlexG's posts.
3) If having mistakes pointed out meant that people stopped posting you'd be long gone. But you refuse to learn.

I am astound how some of you are so lop sided that you are unable to think for yourselves.

Ah right.
When YOU claim 100% you don't mean 100% and it's OUR fault for not knowing what figure you really meant.

but you are so caught up in your own stupidity that you cannot see your nakedness. I think your teacher would be ashamed of you if you had one.

This from the guy that consistently posts stupid comments and then proceeds to blame others so that he doesn't have to correct his behaviour.
You're a stupid, highly hypocritical pillock.

I am not trying to wiggle out of anything, I made a mistake in the way I expressed myself, I can accept that but you a senior member calling another member stupid because I made a mistake, is more glaring that the mistake itself.

Really?
You're not trying to wriggle out of it?
Yet you have, so far, not only failed to clarify what you meant, but have denigrated and blamed others for not understanding what you failed to convey.

I made a mistake Ducky get over it. I have done so you just want to babble. Are you OK Mr. Ducky? you sound as if you are hyperventilating?

No there are no problems there. You made an unsupported statement that's not based in biological science.

Oh please, just quit picking on Stargate guys.
Would you pick on somebody with a crippled arm like this, or a person with a crippled leg like that?
No, of course you wouldn't.
You would think it was cruel and in bad taste.
You would show compassion and sympathy for that person instead.
So ease up on poor Stargate and quit picking on him for having a crippled mind.

Originally Posted by Stargate

I made a mistake Ducky get over it.

Correction: you made a mistake and then proceeded to accuse everyone else of stupidity or blame them for missing the point.

I have done so you just want to babble. Are you OK Mr. Ducky? you sound as if you are hyperventilating?

And then continued to compound your hypocrisy by diverting.

Have you ever been honest in your life? With anyone?

Was this the joke heard round the world?

I made a (kind of) funny at your expense and you're so dense and arrogant that you can't just laugh about it?

On a more direct note, what does that crap about me being a sheep mean? Because I support legalizing pot, I am a sheep now? Or did you just make yet ANOTHER mistake by misreading that somehow I was attacking you and paint me as your enemy?

Sometimes I think PhDemon and Dywddyr are too harsh on you. The number of times I feel that way about their posts has been dwindling rapidly.

@dywyddyer; Pillock, cool word, thanks! Especially considering its etymology.

@Stargate; I still waqnt to know dude, what country are you from?

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Was this the joke heard round the world?

I made a (kind of) funny at your expense and you're so dense and arrogant that you can't just laugh about it?

On a more direct note, what does that crap about me being a sheep mean? Because I support legalizing pot, I am a sheep now? Or did you just make yet ANOTHER mistake by misreading that somehow I was attacking you and paint me as your enemy?

Sometimes I think PhDemon and Dywddyr are too harsh on you. The number of times I feel that way about their posts has been dwindling rapidly.

The problem I have is that I do not have the capacity in speaking the English language the way that I could express myself better. The problem you and the other two have, is you are bullies who think you can browbeat me, but haven't you noticed I can take your beating and still smile. It takes three of you to my one to approach me because you are weaklings and need each other to survive. However I am used to bullies and know your strength lies in attacking in groups. Cowards are somewhat the same they attack only when they are not alone.

Originally Posted by GiantEvil

@dywyddyer; Pillock, cool word, thanks! Especially considering its etymology.

@Stargate; I still waqnt to know dude, what country are you from?

Why do you want to know?

Originally Posted by Stargate

The problem I have is that I do not have the capacity in speaking the English language the way that I could express myself better.

The actual problem that you have is that you post bullshit.
And then, instead of owning up to it you blame others and subsequently fail entirely to get around to what you actually meant (I have specific examples in mind).
If you are AWARE that you have difficulties in expressing yourself then wouldn't it be better for you to CHECK what you're saying?
And then, if a misunderstanding arises explain further, Instead of of accusing others of being, for example, ignorant or being a sheep.
It has been pointed out that your claim is medically and physiologically incorrect: so far all you've done is boast about how oblivious you are to your hypocrisy. Oh, and make further unfounded accusations. When what you SHOULD have done is explain exactly what you meant ¹.

The problem you and the other two have, is you are bullies who think you can browbeat me, but haven't you noticed I can take your beating and still smile. It takes three of you to my one to approach me because you are weaklings and need each other to survive. However I am used to bullies and know your strength lies in attacking in groups. Cowards are somewhat the same they attack only when they are not alone.

Yeah, more bollocks from you.

1 But, then again, your usual method is to post nonsense, accuse others of bullying and stupidity, divert and fail utterly to even attempt to justify or support your original bullshit.

Originally Posted by Stargate

Originally Posted by GiantEvil

@dywyddyer; Pillock, cool word, thanks! Especially considering its etymology.

@Stargate; I still waqnt to know dude, what country are you from?

Why do you want to know?

Your use of written English is mostly mechanically correct, but so naive as to lead to absurdity. I'm interested in the factors surrounding this phenomena.

Originally Posted by GiantEvil

Originally Posted by Stargate

Originally Posted by GiantEvil

@dywyddyer; Pillock, cool word, thanks! Especially considering its etymology.

@Stargate; I still waqnt to know dude, what country are you from?

Why do you want to know?

Your use of written English is mostly mechanically correct, but so naive as to lead to absurdity. I'm interested in the factors surrounding this phenomena.

Its very simple, I did not learn English as my first language and when I started I found many problems and have brought myself to where I am at present. I also have a different culture and the way of expressing myself is different to the way you express yourself. However the only two people I have so much problems with is Mr. Duck and the wanna be professor PhDemon. They have no idea about someone speaking another language and try to make me and the other members on the forum think I am stupid. But hey, that it the way the world is set today, only time will show that there is no one that is not stupid, and no one only stupid. I speak a different language but yet I am able to at least communicate with you,that is more than anyone of them can do, except bullying.

It's not a language problem, it is a brain problem. You post nonsense and expect to be taken seriously. When it is pointed out you are posting nonsense you change the subject and troll. If you don't like the response you get stop posting crap and try and be rational rather than an ignorant loon. It really is that simple. It is not only myself and the duck who have pointed out your crap, many other members and mods have done so, you are unable or unwilling to learn. I know you won't change your stupid ways so you can go back on ignore, life's to short to waste time on people like you.

Originally Posted by Stargate

The problem I have is that I do not have the capacity in speaking the English language the way that I could express myself better.

There are plenty of people on this forum for whom English is not their first language and I've not had a language-based conflict with anyone thus far.. I don't accept that a language barrier is the problem here.

Originally Posted by Stargate

The problem you and the other two have, is you are bullies who think you can browbeat me, but haven't you noticed I can take your beating and still smile.

If you feel like I am bullying you, I am sorry. That isn't my intention. I cannot speak for the others, though. What you seem to perceive as bullying is what any of us who work in the sciences have to go through regularly. Everything we do is scrutinized and picked apart. If you're easily offended by having your work broken down and rejected piecemeal, the sciences aren't for you.

Your attitude has been the source of a lot of conflict in the threads in which you participate. You constantly offer up ideas supported by nothing and get offended when they are shot down.

Originally Posted by Stargate

It takes three of you to my one to approach me because you are weaklings and need each other to survive. However I am used to bullies and know your strength lies in attacking in groups. Cowards are somewhat the same they attack only when they are not alone.

Now you're just being silly. I get that you're easily offended. You need to either thicken your skin or find another forum. The sciences don't care if your feelings are hurt. When you're wrong, you're wrong. Get over it. In fact, get over yourself.

Originally Posted by Stargate

However the only two people I have so much problems with is Mr. Duck and the wanna be professor PhDemon.

You would also have lots of problems with me, but you are on my ignore list.
This greatly reduces the amount of times I feel the need to point out your mistakes - but doesn't completely remove them.

@Stargate; Dude! I asked a simple question, what country are you from? And I get a big sob story about how you suck at English, which is something I already understood and had noted.
First you claim to be an English newbie and that being why you misunderstand much, and then you proceed to display hubris in assuming meanings which are not part of the language being used. We have several words for that in English, one of them is "DUMBASS!"

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Originally Posted by Stargate

However the only two people I have so much problems with is Mr. Duck and the wanna be professor PhDemon.

You would also have lots of problems with me, but you are on my ignore list.
This greatly reduces the amount of times I feel the need to point out your mistakes - but doesn't completely remove them.

How can I be on your ignore list when you follow every post I write? Why are you answering now.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by Stargate

The problem I have is that I do not have the capacity in speaking the English language the way that I could express myself better.

There are plenty of people on this forum for whom English is not their first language and I've not had a language-based conflict with anyone thus far.. I don't accept that a language barrier is the problem here.

Originally Posted by Stargate

The problem you and the other two have, is you are bullies who think you can browbeat me, but haven't you noticed I can take your beating and still smile.

If you feel like I am bullying you, I am sorry. That isn't my intention. I cannot speak for the others, though. What you seem to perceive as bullying is what any of us who work in the sciences have to go through regularly. Everything we do is scrutinized and picked apart. If you're easily offended by having your work broken down and rejected piecemeal, the sciences aren't for you.

Your attitude has been the source of a lot of conflict in the threads in which you participate. You constantly offer up ideas supported by nothing and get offended when they are shot down.

Originally Posted by Stargate

It takes three of you to my one to approach me because you are weaklings and need each other to survive. However I am used to bullies and know your strength lies in attacking in groups. Cowards are somewhat the same they attack only when they are not alone.

Now you're just being silly. I get that you're easily offended. You need to either thicken your skin or find another forum. The sciences don't care if your feelings are hurt. When you're wrong, you're wrong. Get over it. In fact, get over yourself.

If I got easily offended I would leave the forum, I am glad there are other rational people who are capable of working with anyone. I am not easily scared of bullies I can stand up for myself. My English might be poor, but I have a better grip of my emotions that you bullies. I don't go calling people I do not know sh*theads, and stupid, no matter what they say.

Originally Posted by GiantEvil

@Stargate; Dude! I asked a simple question, what country are you from? And I get a big sob story about how you suck at English, which is something I already understood and had noted.
First you claim to be an English newbie and that being why you misunderstand much, and then you proceed to display hubris in assuming meanings which are not part of the language being used. We have several words for that in English, one of them is "DUMBASS!"

You seem to be having a hard time comprehending your self, I did not tell I misunderstand, I told you I have some difficulty in expressing my self at times. They have a word for your non comprension in my language, "brainless"

Stargate, take a break.
Have a cup of tea or something.
All you are doing right now is fighting.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

It's not a language problem, it is a brain problem. You post nonsense and expect to be taken seriously. When it is pointed out you are posting nonsense you change the subject and troll. If you don't like the response you get stop posting crap and try and be rational rather than an ignorant loon. It really is that simple. It is not only myself and the duck who have pointed out your crap, many other members and mods have done so, you are unable or unwilling to learn. I know you won't change your stupid ways so you can go back on ignore, life's to short to waste time on people like you.

There you go, can't stand on your own two feet you have to have someone to help you, that is the problem with bullies or wanna be's who are unsure of them selves. Have you noticed how quick you are to respond it don't seem that my bad English is bothering you. Farther you cannot keep your word you have told me about a thousand times that you have put me on ignore, but you are unable to keep your word much the same as everything you say, you seem to have lost your self will if you had any. I am taking time out to answer you guys because I am going to really stop responding to your baby talk.